[zw]

For something that foundational, you have to move as one giant, lumbering beast. Recall that Apple had at least one (that we know of) false start. A fair bit of the OS (CoreServices; Carbon, and the apps that still rely on it) still relies on HFS+-specific data structures and features.

Core Storage is already moving forward as an effort to dissociate the bytes in logical storage from the bits on physical media. In the short term, we might be able to sandbox the evils of HFS+ by having it just be a software abstraction on top of a much more modern file-system-like-thing. Yosemite already moves any machine it upgrades to Core Storage, even if you don't use FileVault.

[MCRed]

Plus, since the day they added journaling to HFS+, I haven't lost a single byte of data due to corruption of any kind.

I've had drives failed, where I lost a day's data (Was traveling and away from my time machine drive) and that sucked.

But near as I can tell, beyond losing short periods of work due to catastrophic failures of drives (early SSDs were problematic!) I haven't lost any data since Journalling was added (of course, Time Machine has saved my bacon from drive failures.)

I think Apple has done a really great job in this regard. Yes, HFS+ is based on filesystem work going back to the original Macintosh, but in use it's working fine.

[diroussel]

I've had HFS+ corrrupt my TimeMachine partition, and Disk Utility was unable to repair it. DiskWarroir was no use as the volume was too big (the new 64-bit version addresses this).

HFS+ is still unreliable. The journalling is only for file system meta data. The data in the files is not journaled or checksumed, and can be corrupted without detection.

[jahewson]

I experience HFS+ corruption frequently on my TimeMachine disk. There's nothing wrong with with the disk, it's the file system causing it. Disk Utiliy is usually able to repair it, but I did loose some backups once.

How are you verifying that you've never lost a byte of data? What makes you so sure?